USA V. JAMES HISBADHORSE, No. 11-30316 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUL 03 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 11-30316 D.C. No. 1:10-cr-00111-RFC v. MEMORANDUM * JAMES HISBADHORSE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Richard F. Cebull, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2012 ** Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. James Hisbadhorse appeals from the 360-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a), 2241(c), and abusive sexual contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Hisbadhorse s request for oral argument is denied. §§ 1153(a), 2244(a)(5). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm but remand to the district court to correct a clerical error in the judgment. Hisbadhorse contends that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence greater than necessary under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and by imposing the sentence to run consecutively to Hisbadhorse s undischarged state sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion. The sentence, though lengthy, is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors set forth in section 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3584; U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We remand to the district court with instructions to amend the judgment to delete reference to 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(5) and replace it with 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5). AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment. 2 11-30316
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
